Fantastic post that deserves twice as much reward and then some. Is it just me or were these historical science figures more interesting in terms of backstory? Joseph Banks was another interesting cat.
I did know about Wallace and his evolution of man. Goes to show how science is influenced by politics, cultural, religion etc. Beats me why people think it's neutral.
As you know I've had my head stuck in mushrooms a lot of late. When they first started talking about mutualism/symbiosis (Anton de Bary in 1879, Pierre-Joseph van Beneden in 1876) no one believed it as they had their thinking firmly influenced by natural selection and competition, survival of the fittest. And imagine if Darwin had have heard of horizontal gene transfer!
If I was to have my time again I'd ditch the study of literature and transfer my degree to natural sciences. It's infinitely fascinating.
Thank you, @riverflows. Blogging for me is an adventure. I almost never blog about something I know well. That would be tedious. It's always a learning experience, as it was here. Even the comments (such as yours) continue the 'lesson'.
One principle I believe: nothing is fixed. We are constantly learning more about ourselves, the world around us, words, history...everything. How can anyone ever claim to be bored?
When I went to college I chose history, because literature was something I would consume anyway--that would have been an obvious choice. But looking back, I probably showed the most natural talent in geometry. Another time, another school...who knows what might have happened?
Of course I'm going to look up Banks. The adventure continues, until the road comes to an end....
Thanks again for the comment.
I wish I had have known what would serve my passion in later life or that I would get sick of teaching so early in game! But here we are, and life is long, and there's much to learn.
You might find this entertaining, if you like a podcast.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-15/sir-joseph-banks-truths-uncovered-in-new-podcast/6540262